Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

a reply to: FlySolo

i think "meaning of life" is a misnomer. i suspect what most people are looking for is the "meaning of sentience". what is the purpose of being self aware, and not merely functional like a sunflower or an ant.

a reply to: cooperton

Adaptation is NOT evolution.

Actually, YES IT IS.

When you are discussing evolution, the word 'adaptation' is applied to the POPULATION that is being discussed. A POPULATION evolves (not individuals) and a POPULATION adapts (not individuals). Individuals mutate and reproduce, each generation is different from its parents is some way, big or little, so the population as a whole 'changes over time' - that is precisely the definition of evolution - "change over time".

I suspect that what you are trying to describe in individuals is the ability to 'learn to cope'.

A people who have trouble getting enough vitamin 'C' because they live in an area where there is no citrus might 'learn to cope' by finding other plants like chili or the Kakadu Plum. If they cannot 'learn to cope' then they will die out in that area - unless some individual(s) in the population has a mutation that somehow lets them produce their own vitamin 'C' that they can pass on to their offspring. Then those people who have the mutation will survive and those without will die. The resulting population will have the ability to live in a vitamin 'C' free environment - the entire population will have 'adapted' to the vitamin C free diet, that is, they have 'evolved'.

In biology, the word 'adaptation' has a precise meaning that is not equal to 'learning to cope' - in EXACTLY the same way that in science the word 'theory' has a precise meaning that is not equal to 'best guess' or 'sophomoric stoner fantasy'.

originally posted by: FlySolo

Yeah well, I can't really get on board with the Abraham God, the bible at face value, organized religions and I certainly don't believe in Adam and Eve. ... It's all in the DNA and it's consciousness layered over evolution.

And many would agree with you. The Gnostic texts discuss how the OT God was a necessary intermediate for creation, but the "Most High God" is (actually) all good, and (actually) all loving. Elohim/Yahweh (OT God) are not mentioned once in the New Testament, Insteaad the "Most High God"/"Father (of all things)" is mentioned

But you might be on to something regarding the "word" of god so to speak. The conservation of mass where matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It just changes states. I once heard a QM example about particle acceleration. It's like crashing two cars head on, examining the wreckage, finding the two cars and a motorcycle. Things just "appear" that shouldn't be there when so much energy is created when atom smashing.

It could be, when god "spoke" god didn't actually use a voice but rather vibrations which resemble "sound" as they vibrate through strings. Just a guess. And those strings began to behave accordingly to create the subatomic particles we need for our elements to exist. So perhaps, in god's realm, anything is possible with thought alone and anyone can do it. In this realm we are limited to the conditions of a computer generated program and we must build everything we want manually.

Yup. And if consciousness is the basis of quantum mechanics (demonstrated in a rudimentary way by the double-slit light experiment where observation [consciousness] was able to alter the produced light-wave) then the pieces start to come together. The experiments of Charles Littlefield demonstrated that intelligible form (he demonstrated it with the alphabet) can be generated in mineral water by repeating words.

Unfortunately anyone who reduces their viewpoints to the limitations of matter will not be able to understand these truths.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla

originally posted by: rnaa

I suspect that what you are trying to describe in individuals is the ability to 'learn to cope'.

I suspect you are trying to describe the word "epigenetics"?

people who have trouble getting enough vitamin 'C' because they live in an area where there is no citrus might 'learn to cope' by finding other plants like chili or the Kakadu Plum.

No, the genetic expression changed (epigenetic mechanisms) so that vitamin C could be produced in the body. Genetic expression is highly malleable. I suggest researching epigenetics.

In biology, the word 'adaptation' has a precise meaning that is not equal to 'learning to cope'

epigenetics is a coping mechanism. Epigenetics is a form of adaptation. Perhaps you should rethink that statement.

a POPULATION adapts (not individuals)

Again, Research epigenetics. Individuals can adapt, for example, go up to high elevations and your blood 2,3-DPG levels will adapt to the changed levels of oxygen. Would you say Peyton Manning evolved when he moved to Denver (a city with a higher elevation)? Nope.

I'm worried that you're teaching people about evolution when your fundamental knowledge of genetics is flawed. You should make sure to disambiguate between individual adaptation (epigenetics) and population adaptation (evolution).

a reply to: cooperton

Hey Coop - did you have a chance to go over the 156,000 research papers? Are you going to be a disappearing act once again??

Just to refresh your memory: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Hey Coop - did you have a chance to go over the 156,000 research papers? Are you going to be a disappearing act once again??

Just to refresh your memory: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You've read all those papers? I've been through 8 years of science courses, I've seen the literature. Evolution isnt a hard concept to grasp, most people understand it after a simple highschool bio class. Stop acting like its some great intellectual feat to ascertain the almighty theory of evolution

a reply to: cooperton

As a matter of fact I have read a lot of them. Eight years and you still don't get it?? I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Biophysics and a lot of lab work under my belt including publications. Your statements suggest you didn't pay too much attention in class. If you understood the science of evolution, you wouldn't be making those statements.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

As a matter of fact I have read a lot of them. Eight years and you still don't get it?? I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Biophysics and a lot of lab work under my belt including publications. Your statements suggest you didn't pay too much attention in class. If you understood the science of evolution, you wouldn't be making those statements.

I'm not trying to have a contest to see who pisses the most science. pre-teens taking bio can understand the theory. You're acting like anyone who does not think the theory of evolution to be true is a moron. More often than not, Any intelligent person who does not believe in evolution, at one point, did think it to be true, but their search for truth brought them elsewhere.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Biophysics and a lot of lab work under my belt including publications. Your statements suggest you didn't pay too much attention in class.

Yeah, we get it..

Eight years of 'education' AKA indoctrination does not a genius make.

Most of us have enough sense to realize the difference between education and truth.

Public schools INDOCTRINATE, they don't educate...

As another man without a high school diploma, I discovered many years ago that the "educated" class is generally not educated at all, it is mis-educated. The whole purpose of American (perhaps all "western") "higher education" is obviously to bring minds into lock step with "The Agenda." As a general rule, the less official American education a person has been exposed to, the greater his/her ration of common sense.

"Education" is Spiritual Suicide

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

any creationist challenging the public to a debate on the merits of evolutionary theory is merely looking for publicity and not actually attempting to refute the theory itself.

if you dont believe me, there are a hundred threads just like this one that will prove my point.

but it looks like this thread has run its course, even if the participants wont admit it yet.

deuces.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

You know that first link you provided to Henry Makow about how Education is Spiritual Suicide??? Well, Henry is also a college grad. with a PHD.

So much for that double standard hun???

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

As a matter of fact I have read a lot of them. Eight years and you still don't get it?? I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Biophysics and a lot of lab work under my belt including publications. Your statements suggest you didn't pay too much attention in class. If you understood the science of evolution, you wouldn't be making those statements.

I'm not trying to have a contest to see who pisses the most science. pre-teens taking bio can understand the theory. You're You're acting like anyone who does not think the theory of evolution to be true is a moronoften than not, Any intelligent person who does not believe in evolution, at one point, did think it to be true, but their search for truth brought them elsewhere.

You're acting like anyone who does not think the theory of evolution to be true is a moron

You said it, not me. Evolution is not a belief system. It's scientific fact. Once again, I'll ask you - with all the hard evidence contained in over 156,000 research papers which document evolution, what evidence do you have that all these scientists are wrong?? Science isn't about opinions. It's about facts. Do you have facts? I don't think so. Do you have data? No. Do you have evidence to support your position. Absolutely not.

You searched for the truth but came up empty-handed because you don't understand science and how it works. You won't even read a single research paper and discuss why the results are wrong. So why should anyone give credibility to gibberish from someone who can't produce an iota of evidence to support his/her position?

I challenge you to select one research paper from a respected scientific journal investigating some aspect of evolutionary biology and bring it here to the board for discussion.

This is not a contest. It's put up or shut up.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Tell me more (how). Utter nonsense?; a dismissive statement you make without asking my method or trying to help me (or at all interested)?

Try this: http: potato planting in pots for all the help you need.

I will; thanks for the link rnaa, (onions and potatoes have been problematic); and hopefully there is also ANOTHER more esoteric link available: "How to Plant Humans in plots" without them returning to life as zombies; or "pot"s to regenerate (live culture DNA available at an extra charge).

a reply to: cooperton

Again, Research epigenetics.

I know what epigenetics is. I do not claim to be an expert.

Individuals can adapt, for example, go up to high elevations and your blood 2,3-DPG levels will adapt to the changed levels of oxygen.

Sure.

I disagree at the level of definition. Your use of the word 'adapt' here is exactly like the non-scientific use of the word 'theory'. What you describe is the body's reaction to high altitude, which is a previously evolved trait. No new trait, or feature, or genetic (or even epi-genetic) process is involved. Your eyes 'adapt' to differing levels of light but that is not an evolutionary adaptation every time you go into or out of a movie theater.

This is a fundamental difference in the use of the word, and is NOT semantics.

Would you say Peyton Manning evolved when he moved to Denver (a city with a higher elevation)? Nope.

Of course not, he did not evolve. His body learned to cope through training, exercise, diet, and hard work. Just as your eyes cope with changing light conditions, your body copes with varying oxygen availability. Just as the eyes have minimum and maximum bounds of light it can cope with, so to the body has minimum and maximum bounds on oxygen it can cope with - you can die from suffocation and you can die from oxygen poisoning.

Do you think Peyton Manning can pass those results to his children? Probably not, but maybe, the jury is still a long way from a verdict. Certainly, he can pass his work ethic on to his children, and if they live in Denver, their body will develop coping methods to deal with lower oxygen levels which are well within the capabilities of almost every human on the planet. But if the Mannings were to move to Florida first, their children will not develop those high altitude abilities (I suppose they might have an easier time of developing them if they move back to Denver - I just don't know, and neither does anybody else right now).

It is possible that Manning's physical conditioning may have induced epigenetic changes in his body. But unless those changes are inheritable - unless those changes are reflected in the sperm that is fired into the receiving egg in the mother of his children - then it has nothing to do with evolution.

Evidence that epigenetic changes can be inheritable is highly controversial. There is still a lot of work to be done to demonstrate it beyond a doubt. However, whether it is or is not inheritable it is still an extremely long bow to draw to make grandiose pronouncements about the death of 'genetic evolution'. Epigenetics is a fascinating field, and I assume its effects will certainly have to be accounted for in the MES. Whether it is directly inheritable or not, it still influences the behavior and survivability of individuals within a population.

Acknowledging that there is more to the DNA process than we knew yesterday is not a revolution, it is an evolution (pun intended) of man's knowledge base. A purposely loose definition of 'genetics' would describe it as related to inheritance, and 'epigenetics' specifically refers to that which is 'outside' or 'above' genetics, that is 'not inheritable'. My opinion is that it would just require a redefinition of the word 'genetic' to be more inclusive, and thus make 'epigenetic' inapplicable to any of those processes we find in the future are actually inheritable.

a reply to: cooperton

No, the genetic expression changed (epigenetic mechanisms) so that vitamin C could be produced in the body. Genetic expression is highly malleable. I suggest researching epigenetics.

Vitamin C certainly seems to have a role to play in epigenetic processes, but I have never heard that epigenetic processes can turn on vitamin C production in the body.

How come ANYBODY ever gets scurvy if we can do that?

Please cite the study that shows that this happened. While you are at it, can you cite the study that any group of humans can actually do that? Thank you.

Hint: this is the closest I could get with normal 'Professor Google' : How humans make up for an 'inborn' vitamin C deficiency

Hint 2: they don't 'make it'

a reply to: cooperton

epigenetics is a coping mechanism. Epigenetics is a form of adaptation. Perhaps you should rethink that statement.

I have no reason to rethink my statement. I stand by it.

Perhaps you should reconsider what it was I was talking about.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Here is a list of 207 recognized scientific journals which contain peer reviewed laboratory experiments on various aspects of evolution. Currently, there are 152,732 research papers containing laboratory experiments, data and results.
Now YOU tell us why all these lab results are wrong????

www.scimagojr.com...

Is there a way to access these papers from that site?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
Here is a list of 207 recognized scientific journals which contain peer reviewed laboratory experiments on various aspects of evolution. Currently, there are 152,732 research papers containing laboratory experiments, data and results.
Now YOU tell us why all these lab results are wrong????

www.scimagojr.com...

Is there a way to access these papers from that site?

Not directly from the site, but here's how to retrieve a paper:

1. You can go directly to the publication website. Review the research articles and see if they publish it free of charge.
2. If they don't offer it free (and that drives me nuts!!! Most pubs are going open source -finally) go to: arxiv.org...
Click on "SEARCH" - any subject, doesn't matter.
3. On the search page, you can either look for an author or use the Experimental section to find the article. It's usually best to search for the author in both sections as all the papers of that author should come up. ARXIV is incomplete and not always up to date.

You can narrow the journal search at scimagojr by clicking on Journal Search. Put in a specific topic i.e. EVOLUTION in the query box and it will come up with a list of journals containing articles on that topic.

Here are a few other links to open source scientific journals:

Directory of Open Source Journals: doaj.org...

Public Library of Science: www.plos.org...

Open Science Directory: www.opensciencedirectory.net...

It's also a good idea to look up recent symposiums on a topic - I do this very often because you'll get the latest and greatest information. For example CELL had a symposium last year in Spain specifically on human evolution - you can go through the program and perhaps find something of interest to research.
www.cell-symposia-humanevolution.com...

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

what about evolution of organs for example the eye !

starting from multi celled organism to the eyes of multi celled intelligent organisms like fish,lizards , birds , apes, humans
the evidence of the evolution of the optical cavity, the optical nerves , that evidence is available everywhere and recorded by science

what is the evidence of god , oh yeh a book written by humans which didn't exist before humans
and before monotheism there was polytheism and before that spirituality, where as we can show the evolution of species as they adapt and change and evolve and get better before humans even existed.
So species were evolving adapting and changing before humans were around to even think about the concept of a monotheistic god !

god as a concept of a all powerful being who created everything is a human concept and has been adapted from spirituality to make it more understandable so it can be controlled and used .
Where are humans cannot completely comprehend the infinite energy of the source and so we created subdivisions of everything so that it could be understood and controlled so we could piece it all back together to understand the infinite source.

the concept of god as a being is dead to me and many other humans who are slowly starting to realise that we are spiritual beings trying to get back to our source , the infinite source of energy.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It is not equally likely and I suspect you are trolling.

If cats could absorb doors on the cellular level I might have some kind of understanding of what you mean. It was a documented case of ecoli obtaining this ability through a series of beneficial mutations.

Look up and read the study. Find out what citrate is, understand microbial biology and see how nonsensical your cat opening a door analogy is.

Are you implying that the E.coli did this all on its own without any prodding ????

Or HELP.

Here is an interesting question.

Why do evolutionists need to believe that all of this has occurred in this way , and at no time at all, has some part of everything, EVOLVED and decided to interfere with the natural way of things, to cloak everything and hide the truth at some point.

How is it you have come to this conclusion????

Seeing as you consider that EVERY and ALL possibilities can happen like a grain of sand morphed into a solar system.

I don't even know how to respond to this.. I'll try but I think I'm about ready to give up on this site, the level of ignorance is ridiculous..

Are you implying that the E.coli did this all on its own without any prodding ????

Or HELP.

I am not implying anything. I merely referenced a scientific study, DECADES in length, which observed e coli evolution. Do you know what a SCIENTIFIC study is? It involves control samples, monitored over time. Some of the samples evolved the ability, and through successive generations the trait became dominant. Proof of evolution.

Yes, ecoli did this on its own. The only prodding was random natural mutation that proved beneficial and became dominant.

Have you any kind of scientific study to reference that disagrees with evolution? Religion is not scientific and biblical literalism is not a legitimate position from which to debate scientific findings..

Here is an interesting question.

Why do evolutionists need to believe that all of this has occurred in this way , and at no time at all, has some part of everything, EVOLVED and decided to interfere with the natural way of things, to cloak everything and hide the truth at some point.

There is no such thing as an evolutionist. There is the scientific theory of evolution, which, like all established scientific theories, is backed up by plenty of evidence. Those who understand scientific theory, (which isn't hard), understand that evolution makes sense, based on the mountains of evidence available.

People who understand evolution, understand that from the moment the universe was created, matter has reacted and evolved over time. From the first particles, to the first atoms and molecules, to the first stars, planets, and galaxies, evolution has occurred and will continue to occur, governed by the fundamental physical laws of nature.

Nothing "interferes with the natural way of things", as you suggest. There is fundamental physical law, chemical laws, electrical laws etc., and nothing has been observed to contradict those laws in the physical universe, excepting black holes and some findings in quantum physics, science has revealed and mathematically described almost everything we see in nature.

What are you suggesting is being "cloaked"? What truth are you asserting has been "hidden"? Science endeavours to uncover truths and uncloak the unknown, that is its sole purpose. For a thousand years the scientific method has been employed and refined, to the point we know more about the universe now than ever before in human history.

If you choose to believe in intelligent design driving evolution, that is your prerogative and right, but you must realise and admit that it is not required for evolution to occur. If you choose to believe in creationism, then you must realise and admit that it is scientifically and manifestly impossible, if all of recorded human history, observation, and experience is to be considered. (It is only possible if we live in a universe without fundamental physical laws, which we clearly do not).

If you want to argue evolution, make the effort to understand what it is actually based on. It is an Occam's razor conclusion based on actual, observable, repeatable, reliable evidence. It is not a bunch of mythology and wishful thinking written by "evolutionists" over centuries to suit their own diabolical ends.

P.S. It's silly that in the "origins and creationism" section, every other thread is creationism vs evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or creationism; all these threads are off topic. You might as well have a section called "pagan winter solstice and father christmas" and start threads there on how scientific findings are wrong because it isn't possible for one man to deliver presents to to the whole world simultaneously.

Seriously, read some history and study some science and understand what you are debating.

"Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - Pope John Paul II (1996)

/rant

/thread

/ats